Few drivers fighting red-light camera fines

Of the 111,000 people caught by red-light cameras in the city of Houston since September, only about 360 have challenged their citations, and only 78 were successful, court records show.

Court and police officials say several possible factors explain the reluctance to appeal and the low success rate. The key, they say, is that the images and video captured by the cameras, which drivers can watch online beforehand, can be precise and compelling in proving violations.

"Once the person sees the tape, they seem to be convinced," said the Municipal Courts' presiding judge, Berta Mejia.

At least one critic, Houston lawyer Randall Kallinen, said most drivers probably choose to pay the civil penalty, which doesn't hurt their driving records, rather than hassle with a trip to the crowded and busy courts building at 1400 Lubbock.

"It's only $75, so how much trouble will a person go through?" said Kallinen, who has criticized the cameras before City Council.

"A lot of people won't go through the bother."

Those few motorists who do challenge their citations offered a variety of excuses, according to citation adjudication data obtained by the Houston Chronicle under the Texas Public Information Act.

The most common appeal, a "general denial" of guilt, was the least successful. At least 170 motorists made this claim, and all but four were forced to pay the $75 fine. The most common reason for overturning a citation came when drivers proved that someone had stolen their vehicle. That happened at least 11 times, the records show.

Some succeeded by claiming the time of the yellow light was too short, or that their license plates had been stolen. Others convinced hearing officers that emergencies or other circumstances excused their actions.

"If they don't have the sufficient evidence, then they're probably not going to be found not liable," said Bonita Tolbert, an assistant director at Municpal Courts.

In a few cases, they succeeded by noting that glitches caused the wrong vehicle to be cited. And in at least one instance, someone who ran a light to keep pace with a funeral procession had a citation tossed.

The appeals system, which is among a series of state-mandated changes that City Council is considering this week, works much like parking citation adjudications.

Drivers, and any witnesses they want to present, come to court after receiving a violation notice and meet with one of seven hearing officers about their cases. Those who lose may then ask a Municipal Court judge to review the record and make a final determination.

The Legislature passed a law giving motorists the right to have that latter appeal as a bench trial, rather than a review of the adjudication record. City Council also must now appoint those hearing officers.

Fourteen drivers challenged their citations to full appeals, and only one was successful.

The motorist, Jim Moody, said a camera cited him on Feb. 23 driving through the intersection of Fountain View and the Southwest Freeway.

A hearing officer denied Moody's claim that the traffic signal malfunctioned, but a judge overruled on appeal, a fact Moody learned this week from a Chronicle reporter.

"Justice prevailed in the case," he said. "Maybe I should go buy a lottery ticket now or something."

It was unclear whether the judge, Maria Casanova, viewed Moody's video before clearing him. A call to her office Friday wasn't returned.

Manual Barrera Jr., one of two full-time hearing officers, has considered at least 211 red-light adjudication cases. He's found about one in five of those motorists "not liable," including a few police officers who proved they were responding to emergency calls. Two of those "not liable" cases involved motorists already cited by officers for running the same light.

In most cases, he said, drivers realize the futility of their challenges when the video clearly shows their violations.

Some, though, still aren't convinced. Barrera recalled one law officer who insisted the signal was blinking red, and therefore the camera system shouldn't have been activated.

"I showed him the video," said Barrera. "And when the video showed him running the light, and the light working properly, he got up out of his seat, pointed at the computer monitor and said, 'That video is lying.' "